For full functionality of our forum it is necessary to enable Javascript in your browser. If you're not sure about how to do this you will find easy to understand instructions at: http://www.enable-javascript.com

I don't think the US court has necessarily to consider illegal activities in the UK - the evidence against Naseer in respect of the proposed attack on the New York subway sounds to be strong.

This man is a Pakistani national, he came to this country on a student visa. Frankly I will not be losing much sleep over whether the US court acts in a manner consistent with the way a UK court might act. I'm not about to question the way that the US justice system works in respect of someone who isn't a UK citizen.

Because his lawyers kept coming up with obstacles to the extradition. The legal process took its course,and now he's gone.

Yes, but once again, with feeling, Two years!

Why is the legal trade allowed to get away with these sharp practices? Delays mean extra time, which ultimately costs everyone money. I also think it does not serve the best interests of justice either. From public enquiries to court cases it seems delay, obfuscation and confusion is the order of the day, all to drag things out, so the only guaranteed winners are the lawyers!

You make a massive assumption with your 'sharp practices' remark - do you have any evidence with which to back it up?

I suspect that, were the tables to be turned, and you were the one facing an extradition order, you might be very glad that our rule of law would allow your lawyers to explore every legal avenue to delay or stop the process.

I also suspect that you would be among the first to proudly defend our recognition of the democratic and legal right of anyone within our legal jurisdiction to use the law to defend themselves against allegations. We made these laws, so we shouldn't complain when they are used.

Wise words, but they dont even begin to explain why it took two years for such a thing to come to pass. Just stop and think for a minute why it took two whole years to argue a case. I could understand a few weeks. Concieveably a month or two. But what were they doing that took two years? As a taxpayer footing at least some of the cost ( I don't know if legal aid was involved, but certainly court costs have been incurred) I think I have every right to ask why and how this happened.

These processes so take a long time, but then so do many others - it's not uncommon for long periods to elapse between a person being charged and a trial date. Someone who is being held on remand, for instance, may be in custody for up to 182 days between the date of being sent for trial for an indictable offence and the start of the actual trial.

Extradition proceedings must follow a strict legal protocol, involving the Police, the CPS, the courts, the Home Office, and the Home secretary,in addition to departments in the requesting State. All this inevitably takes time, and lawyers acting for the individual involved must be permitted to raise legal arguments all the way through.

Two years can pass quite easily while this goes on. It's all in the interest of justice being seen to be done.

It seems to me that people are conditioned to accept this state of affairs as the norm. Nobody involved in the process seems to have the slightest inclination to pull their finger out. As long as they are being paid (usually) at public expense then they will just follow business as usual. Justice should be seen to be done, but it should also be seen to be done in a faster, more efficient manner!

Just how much more of this sort of practice can the public purse afford? And am I the only one who thinks that two whole years of arguing is too much? It is the defendants legal team who have been stalling all this time (and I wonder where they have been drawing their money from during that time). Is it too much to ask, to tell them that they have 90 days to put together their case. After which, if you cant do your job the legal aid tap gets turned off, and your client gets the boot anyhow. The courts, police, CPS etc (as arms of the state) could be given timeframes to work in.

The requesting state is the easiest of all to deal with. They should be told in no uncertain terms that if they want him (and they were the ones to start the ball rolling in the first place), they will have to be willing to work faster to get him. If not, then the defendant will be released.

But of course none of this will happen, because the people who can make it happen simply have no interest, because nobody is pressuring them. And no one is pressuring them because it is seen as the norm.

Let me ask you this one question. Do you think two years is acceptable? Not reasonable, but acceptable?

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.

For full functionality of our forum it is necessary to enable Javascript in your browser. If you're not sure about how to do this you will find easy to understand instructions at: http://www.enable-javascript.com